why anti-art? (slightly ot ranrish)

[Kugar]

I always thought that if my response to art was "How much does it cost?" then I don't appreciate it enough to own it. The stuff I do love and own the price was either cheap or my reaction was "How can I get the money to get it."

There have been plenty of times I said to my self "Well, if it was half the price I'd buy it" but I knew I still probably wouldn't.

As I grow older, I buy more expensive art, because my taste changed. Mostly because I have experienced and can tell quality and originality, and know what I like enough to feel comfortable buying it.

So when someone complains about how much something original cost I usually think they are comparing it to the cool poster they just picked up for 5 at Suncoast and not appreciating it for what it is. I think it is a matter of perspective.

That's enough rambling for me.
Kugar

 

[kkoie]

Making a distinction between art and illustration is a completely differn't ball of wax. A discussion that started way before this one did, and will probably never end. Some people feel that it has to be a specific thing to be art, while there are some people like an artist I read about (I'm sorry I forget the name) who, for his entry into a fameous show, went out and bought a shovel. And there it was displayed next to all the drawings, sculpture, and paintings. He didn't even take the time to remove the pricetag. Yet that individual considered that art. My point is that everyone is going to have a differn't def. for what is and isn't art. Whether illustration is art is really a whole other discussion I think.

Celebrim: I was wondering if that was what your point was. sorry for the misinterpretation.

 

[barsoomcore]

One does have to keep in mind that artists, in general, learn to see things in a different way than the average person.

Just how does the average person see things? I'm sure I have no idea.

More generally, it seems strange to me that people are justifying the price of art based on the amount of effort put into it.

Effort has nothing to do with the value of anything -- except insofar as things that are difficult to make are going to naturally be in shorter supply. Under normal circumstances those things are going to be more valuable than other, more common things.

The value of your artwork is whatever you can get someone to pay for it. And the more that is, hey, the more power to you. But it's not recompense for your time and effort. Nobody gets that.

We all earn the money our services are worth -- regardless of how much effort we put into them. If painting is for me an effortless thing, that I dash off with no hard work or travail, are my paintings therefore worth less than someone else's who struggles and labour over each stroke?

Of course not. The value of each artists' paintings is always whatever the market will bear -- that is, however much they can get someone to pay for it.

If you say, "I worked really hard on this painting and I must have $100 for it," then what do you do if nobody will buy it at that price? Is it still worth that amount even if nobody will buy it?

 

[littlejohn]

Gizzard: Good points. I didn't mean to open up a can of worms: I only drew the distinction in the sense that illustration usually has some "utility" (it illustrates something) and what people call art may or may not. Art, as I think of it, has some value in its "aura" (it is valued for something invisible) whereas illustration may or may not. I agree that they are parts of the same thing. This digression probably isn't terribly on point: I think I misread where the thread was headed.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Just how does the average person see things? I'm sure I have no idea.

geez haven't you been paying attention the average person can only see the surface of things blah, blah. Heck even using the term average person in this context is insanely rude, moronic, elitist crap. Oh wait I finally found the master race its the artist.

 

[Ace]

I don't blame you for rating a bit alsih20

The sad fact of the matter is while millions of people play RPGs and enjoy them weekly, there is essentially no money in the business.

Oh there are a few profitable companies and even a few big boys but for an industry as big as it is that attracts so many talented people and consumes so much time it is well
PPCOC

Poor Pay Clean Out of Cash

Not Pod People Call of Cuthulu silly

JMO but if you want to make money with your art (whatever form it make take) don't rely on gamers, go elsewhere.

 

[brak1]

What is it about this topic that makes people um... edgey? Maybe because we all have different definitions of the concepts? I dunno, but just in case, here are my definitions:

Definition of art: anything someone else creates that you get more out of than you put into.

Definition of value: changes from person to person

Definition of artist: human being, treat 'em like one

Definition of "average joe": see definition of artist

Sorry if this comes of preachy, it's just all this acrimony is kinda bummin' me out.

 

[Oni]

I'm just going to throw out some random thoughts here.

-I have met people who, for whatever reason, do not believe that money should be a concern or a motivator for an artist as they are presumably doing what they love. Two thoughts on that. Firstly, people have to eat. Secondly, I am of the opinion that ideally everyone should work at a job they love (this isn't always possible but I think it is one of the most important things you can do to make your life a happy one). A man who begrudges another their job because they enjoy it is someone who is unhappy with their own lot in life.

-There have been numerous times when I've heard or seen something and my intial response was "Ack, who the hell would buy this crap," or,"Who in the world would pay that much?" Well the followup to that is it's my problem not theirs. More power to them for doing what they want, and even better if they are doing well because of it. It's okey to have a kneejerk reaction to something, but we as rational human beings ought to recognize that reaction for what it is.

-An artist should be able to charge whatever the he feels like charging, if someone buys it then obviously that piece was worth it to the customer. If you don't like the price, don't buy it. If you like it enough to pay whatever the pricetag says, then why would you complain. A piece is either worth it to you or it isn't, there isn't much middle ground there. Giving the artist a hard time over it isn't going to accomplish anything.

-Lastly I like polite people. If you don't like something, and you just have to be heard, I for one am more likely to hear you if it's said in a civil manner.


Just some random ramblings, maybe they make sense, maybe they don't, I've not quite had enough sleep.

 

[Reprisal]

Just for the record, I believe that being an artist is a real job if you approach it from a fundamentally economic standpoint. Jobs are about livelihood. From all of that comes things like quality, and reliability. But, of course, I approach jobs as a "work to live" game rather than a "live to work" game. So you're situation might be different than mine...

Excellent posts, Celebrim.

Re: Wolv0rine

Quality and Time

It should be obvious that I know little about the basics of "image crafting" (illustration, painting, 3D rendering, mixed media et al). I accept that. At the same time, however, I think what I was trying to get at wasn't that I expected you to work 9 to 5 and Monday to Friday, but rather that you keep an accurate account of how long it really takes you to create something. I hold true to the formula I presented: [Materials + (Wage * Time)]. I think the problem is trying to deduce what a proper wage-rate would be and how to accurately gauge the time it took to create an image.

That's the kicker.

The Certification Debate

I think certification is a necessary annoyance in day-to-day life. It's a sort of social short-hand that signifies that you're fully trained and reliably skilled at what it is that you do... whatever that may be. While I agree that natural ability does exist, and that people should be able to get paid for something they taught themselves to do... It's lamentable that these people fall through the cracks of certification, but at the same time, it seems that it's doing much more good that bad.

*looks around sheepishly*...ermm..okay, gods I hope I got around to the point in that rambling somewhere. I've been typing this for about an hour or so now.

On the contrary, I found your post to be quite coherent. Also, I like the direction you and others are going into defining someone who creates... "Artist" does have certain connotations now, it seems. Is there a difference between someone that defines himself as an Illustrator as opposed to an Artist? I would be inclined to think so, and that difference would be fundamental.

If I were to embrace an economic ideology in regards to my images/pieces/pictures/etc then I would call myself a Painter, or an Illustrator more than I would an Artist.

But that's just me, it could most certainly be different for many others out there,

- Rep.

 

[thomden]

what's the big deal?

Why do people think being an artist is different from any other job? There are doctors who love there job, and those who don't, but do it because they don't have anything else they're better at.

There are people who practice medicine at home, but aren't doctors regardless of how much they know. And there are people who practice art at home who aren't professional artists. Perhaps the problem is we apply the term "artist" too generally. You wouldn't call someone who put a fire out in their own kitchen a fireman. But someone who's PAID and makes their living from putting out fires IS a fireman!

This is a great thread btw.